Jai Chemicals, Faridabad vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is a petition filed by M/s Jai Chemicals (hereinafter described as the petitioner), under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of the complaint dated 23rd November, 1992 and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate summoning it as an accused in the said complaint.

In the complaint filed by the State of Punjab through Shri Darshan Kumar Garg, it has been asserted that M/s Shiv Narain Periwal & Sons, Abohar were dealing in the Insecticide and holding a licence for that purpose. Licence was issued by Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur. Shri Darshan Kumar Garg, Insecticide Inspector visited the shop of M/s Shiv Narain Periwal and Sons, Abohar, who is the authorised Dealer of M/s. Jai Chemicals, Faridabad. At the time of inspection, Jagat Periwal was present. Insecticide Inspector drew the sample of Jai Endosulfan manufactured by the petitioner in three seated containers of Jai Endosulfan 35% E.C. Batch No. DC06 each containing 500 ML for sample and a seizure memo was prepared in accordance with the law. The samples were sealed with the seal of Insecticide Inspector. The Dealer refused to put his seal in the sample. The Dealer was paid the cost of the sample. One sealed sample was sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar. The report was received. It was found that the sample did not conform to the relevant I.S.I. specifications. Since the petitioner is alleged to have manufactured the misbranded Endosulfan, referred to above, it was also prosecuted.

The learned Judicial Magistrate summoned the petitioner and others as accused persons.

As per the petitioner, the complaint and the order summoning the petitioner is liable to be quashed because the complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the product. The shelf life expired in June, 1992, while the complaint was filed on 23rd November, 1992. It has also been alleged that there is no sanction against the petitioner for its prosecution. A valuable right was lost to the petitioner to get the sample retested.

I have heard the parties'' counsel and I have seen the relevant record.

The main stay of the argument raised at the bar by the petitioner''s learned counsel was that the complaint was filed after the shelf life of the product had expired. A valuable right to get the sample retested was lost and thus, the complaint should be quashed.

The attention of the Court was drawn to plethora of precedents that when complaint is filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the product, the valuable right of the accusedpetitioner is lost. Reference can be made in this regard to the number of decisions of this Court, particularly in the cases of National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 137 to the same effect is the decision in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 157 ; Bhai Manjit Singh, Managing Director, Montari Industries Ltd. v. The State of Punjab, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 552 ; and also to the subsequent decision in the case of U.B. Bukana, Assistant Marketing Manager, Gujrat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. Ltd., Amritsar and another v. State of Punjab, 1993(1) Recent Criminal Reports 665 . In all these cases, referring to section 24 of the Insecticides Act, it was concluded that Subsection 4 of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act gives the accused persons right to get the second sample analysed from the laboratory but before the right could be exercised, the shelf life of the substance had expired therefore, the accused was deprived of his right to get the sample examined from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. But in the present case it was pleaded that shelf life expired in June, 1992. In the reply filed this fact has not been disputed. In other words, the complaint had been filed after the shelf life had expired because it is dated 23rd November, 1992. It is clear from the aforesaid that when shelf life has expired, the petitioner lost a valuable right to get the second sample analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. A valuable right was lost and prejudice caused to the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

For these reasons, the petition is accepted. The complaint dated 23rd November, 1992 and the order summoning the accused dated 7th December, 1993 are quashed.